Four ways to get an independent view.
One honest answer either way.
A Big 4 review of the same programme typically costs £200,000–£400,000 and takes two to three months. Ours is £50,000, and you have the answer in three to four weeks.
No delivery arm, no implementation to protect, nothing to sell you afterwards.
Nobody wakes up wanting an assurance review.
You've just inherited it
A transaction is coming, or the value creation plan has stalled
Proof, before the price
What each tier has actually produced
XL
$35m, three years, nothing in production
We found the root causes were fragmented ownership, vendor incentives and governance — not the technology.
Live across all seven operating businesses, inside the twelve months.
Read the full case →Standard
$25m, no regulatory lead, no audit trail
We found no regulatory owner and nothing linking the obligation to the delivery — the causes sat above the delivery team.
Paused, re-scoped, restarted in three months with clear ownership.
Read the full case →Standard
60% of the IT portfolio · reporting green at board level
We found one programme running off course, with its real position sitting in the project plans and the terminology used, rather than in the reporting.
Paused, business case and budget reassessed, delivery back on track.
Read the full case →
"Gave us an independent view of where we stood ahead of a potential transaction — completed in weeks."CIO, European Commodity Trader
Fixed scope. Fixed price. Built to fit the question you're actually asking.
Every tier is fixed in scope and price, designed for rapid approval and delivered before the moment it's needed for has passed.
The Signal Check
A low-friction way to get an independent answer before committing to a full review.
- Know within two weeks whether this needs your attention
- Get an independent view without a business case or a sign-off conversation
- Something to put beside the PMO's status report
Most chosen
The Full Assurance Report
For programmes with an annual spend up to £15m.
- Know why it's slipping, not just that it is
- Leave with a fix sequence someone owns, with dates against it
- Walk into the board with an independent position, not the SI's version
Full Assurance at Scale
More than £15m a year, or multi-country. At that scale a Standard sample isn't enough to be defensible.
- Know which workstream is actually carrying the risk
- A fix sequence that holds across the whole programme, not one workstream at a time
- An independent position for a board that is already nervous
The Portfolio Screen
A different question: breadth across programmes, not depth on one.
£16,000, £40,000 and £80,000 per programme at Lite, Standard and XL depth. Screen the portfolio shallow, then go deeper on whatever it flags.
Discuss your programme →Fixed price on a one-page scope. We start within 5 working days of your call.
We work from the documents you already have, so your PMO isn't building anything new. Your SI is told it's an independent review and interviewed like any other stakeholder.
Custom — something else? Talk to us →Standing quarterly coverage across a portfolio? See the Portfolio Monitoring Retainer →The full comparison
Same evidence-based approach at every level — the difference is depth, not rigour.
| Dimension | Lite | Standard | XL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annual programme spend | Any | Up to £15m a year | More than £15m a year, or multi-country and multi-integrator |
| Typical question answered | "Are there early warning signs?" | "Where is delivery risk emerging and what should we fix first?" | "How do risks interact across a programme this size, and what should we fix first?" |
| Survey coverage | Targeted | Comprehensive | Comprehensive + workstream-tailored |
| Interviews | 4 × 30-min validation interviews | 8–13 × 30–60 min stakeholder interviews | 16–26 × 30–60 min stakeholder interviews |
| Document review | Project brief | Core delivery artefacts | Deep cross-workstream review |
| Root cause analysis | |||
| Deliverable | Executive Brief | Full report + heat map | Full report + heat map |
| Timeline | 1–2 weeks | 3–4 weeks | 6–8 weeks |
| Time required from your team | ~2–3 hours total | ~10–15 hours total | ~20–30 hours total |
| Typically compared to | A Big 4 review at ten times the cost | A Big 4 review at four to eight times the cost | A Big 4 review at two to four times the cost |
| Investment | £20,000 | £50,000 | £100,000 |
“The previous consultancy assessment was deemed inadequate and overly verbose, missing some key points clearly highlighted by Performance Radar.”Renato Callisto, VP Portfolio, Budgeting & Governance
What working with us actually involves.
Short answers below. For the longer version, including how this compares with a PMO, internal audit or a Big 4 review, see the guide to independent programme assurance →
Your team's time
Eight to thirteen interviews on a Standard engagement, though several are usually covered in one conversation with the programme manager. In practice that's a handful of people at 30–60 minutes each. We work around delivery, not through it.
Your integrator will know
We tell them what we're doing and why. Reviews run behind an SI's back produce worse evidence and a worse relationship.
Senior practitioners only
No junior team, no template, no leverage model. The person who runs your assessment has spent a career delivering programmes like yours, and signs the report themselves.
If there's nothing wrong, that's the finding
We've said so before, in writing, and we'll say it again. You are paying for an accurate answer, not a list of problems.
We don't sell the fix.
No delivery arm, no implementation to protect, no remediation to sell you afterwards. We don't bid for the work we might recommend. It's the reason the answer is worth what you're paying for it.
Unsure which level fits your situation?
No obligation, no sales pitch — we'll help you choose the right level of assurance in 15 minutes.
More detail on how this differs from your PMO, internal audit or a Big 4 firm: read the FAQ →